Advertisements

Remember that absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Don't be a victim of FUD...
>-----Original Message-----
>I can't find anything on Microsoft's site but don't want
to use them if are
>officially considered cheating.
>
>
>.
>

Advertisements

What's FUD - I won't take offence if the F stands for something unsavoury!
And what does 'proof of absence mean'?

"Maria" <> wrote in message
news:07f501c37b87$667a7a50$...
| Remember that absence of proof is not proof of absence.
| Don't be a victim of FUD...
|
| >-----Original Message-----
| >I can't find anything on Microsoft's site but don't want
| to use them if are
| >officially considered cheating.
| >
| >
| >.
| >

"Maria" <> wrote in message
news:026901c37bb3$03ba4f90$...
| >What's FUD - I won't take offence if the F stands for
| something unsavoury!
| >And what does 'proof of absence mean'?
| >
|
| The F does stand for a four-letter word, but it's quite
| clean... FUD is an old marketing ploy, and it stands for
| Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. IBM used to be very good at
| it.
|
| Your first post suggested to me that you thought Microsoft
| disapproves of using Transcender practice tests.
|
| But even though you did not find evidence that Microsoft
| approves of Transcender, this does not really 'prove' that
| Microsoft disapproves of Transcender.
|
| Or, in general: if you cannot prove that something is
| true, you have not actually proved that it is false.
| (Even if it were possible to prove a negative in the first
| place).
|
| And if I have now managed to muddle things up even more,
| then I apologise ;o)
|
| Maria
|
|

Having come across an ancient printout (fanfold paper, no
less) of one of my masterpieces, I'm afraid I have to
agree with you.
>I thought astronomers were the only people to ever have
used forth!

Forth originated with astronomers who used it in early
satellites, but it is useful in any system with very
little memory. I used it years ago for automotive work and
once enhanced a pharmaceutical production-line controller.
I believe some white-goods appliances also use(d) it. Do
you know of another language that has a command-line
interpreter of 2KB, and a complete kernel in 8KB?
Interactive debugging comes as standard, multitasking and -
threading are the norm. There are even chips with Forth as
the assembly language, I'm not making this up!www.fig-org.uk

Way back my company looked at using forth to solve curtain types of
problems. The concept of a dictionary to add your own words and
sentences, thus creating your own language, seemed [at the time] a
naturally way to describe the problem and solution as one. After that
they toyed with prolog, with the same goals in mind. Fortunately
object oriented practices began to take shape and become more wide
spread.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:29:45 -0700, "Maria"
<> wrote:
>>Aghhhhh!!! A true write once, read never again language.
>
>Having come across an ancient printout (fanfold paper, no
>less) of one of my masterpieces, I'm afraid I have to
>agree with you.
>
>>I thought astronomers were the only people to ever have
>used forth!
>
>Forth originated with astronomers who used it in early
>satellites, but it is useful in any system with very
>little memory. I used it years ago for automotive work and
>once enhanced a pharmaceutical production-line controller.
>I believe some white-goods appliances also use(d) it. Do
>you know of another language that has a command-line
>interpreter of 2KB, and a complete kernel in 8KB?
>Interactive debugging comes as standard, multitasking and -
>threading are the norm. There are even chips with Forth as
>the assembly language, I'm not making this up!
>www.fig-org.uk
>
>Maria

don't even think of looking at either (transcender or
dumps) because, thought you might just pass the exams,
you will miss out on that personal satisfaction of
passing the exam after taking some amount of effort.

I cleared my MCSD.NET and am on the topof the world
today. Right amount of study always does pay off well.

Also, I believe that nowadays to clear MS exams all you
need is a little common sense and to know the fact that
these exams are becoming more of promotional instruments
for their latest products.

Are you trying to say that by using Transcender or some other legitimate
prep tool as preparation after studying the product and working with it
hands-on day to day, is somehow less effort than NOT using a prep tool like
Transcender?

If so, I'd have to say I don't agree with you. Try telling that to Kaplan
and other organizations out there helping people pass the SAT's and other
standardized exams, let alone IT certifications.

If ALL you use is Transcender, than yes, you're short changing yourself.
BUT, if it's used as a final prep tool (the way it's designed to be used),
after proper study and hands-on experience in a real work environment, then
that's smart. But again, it's up to the individual and how much money they
feel justified in spending to prepare for an exam. But, to say that using
them is somehow degrading the satisfaction of passing the exam, then that's
just plain silly.

--
Leigh Kendall, MCSD, MCDBA

"Sarang" <> wrote in message
news:04c101c37d49$1228bc50$...
> Frankely speaking,
>
> don't even think of looking at either (transcender or
> dumps) because, thought you might just pass the exams,
> you will miss out on that personal satisfaction of
> passing the exam after taking some amount of effort.
>
> I cleared my MCSD.NET and am on the topof the world
> today. Right amount of study always does pay off well.
>
> Also, I believe that nowadays to clear MS exams all you
> need is a little common sense and to know the fact that
> these exams are becoming more of promotional instruments
> for their latest products.

Most people use these type of 'prep tools' in the hope that the same
(or very similar) questions will appear in the actual exam. Why else
would anyone want to use them? The format of these exams is so simple,
that no intelligent person would need to take a 'practice' test before
taking the real one.

My view is they help to undermine the worth of the exams, when in
order for some dummy to pass an exam, that dummy simply needs to pay
transcender (or whoever) for a set of questions and answers which they
can memorize.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:27:37 -0400, "Leigh Kendall"
<> wrote:
>Not sure what you're trying to say.
>
>Are you trying to say that by using Transcender or some other legitimate
>prep tool as preparation after studying the product and working with it
>hands-on day to day, is somehow less effort than NOT using a prep tool like
>Transcender?
>
>If so, I'd have to say I don't agree with you. Try telling that to Kaplan
>and other organizations out there helping people pass the SAT's and other
>standardized exams, let alone IT certifications.
>
>If ALL you use is Transcender, than yes, you're short changing yourself.
>BUT, if it's used as a final prep tool (the way it's designed to be used),
>after proper study and hands-on experience in a real work environment, then
>that's smart. But again, it's up to the individual and how much money they
>feel justified in spending to prepare for an exam. But, to say that using
>them is somehow degrading the satisfaction of passing the exam, then that's
>just plain silly.

Microsoft supports the use of 'prep tools' for exam preparation. This is why
they have the MCPTP program.

"Kline Sphere" <T> wrote in message
news:...
> Oh come on....
>
> Most people use these type of 'prep tools' in the hope that the same
> (or very similar) questions will appear in the actual exam. Why else
> would anyone want to use them? The format of these exams is so simple,
> that no intelligent person would need to take a 'practice' test before
> taking the real one.
>
> My view is they help to undermine the worth of the exams, when in
> order for some dummy to pass an exam, that dummy simply needs to pay
> transcender (or whoever) for a set of questions and answers which they
> can memorize.
>
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:27:37 -0400, "Leigh Kendall"
> <> wrote:
>
> >Not sure what you're trying to say.
> >
> >Are you trying to say that by using Transcender or some other legitimate
> >prep tool as preparation after studying the product and working with it
> >hands-on day to day, is somehow less effort than NOT using a prep tool
like
> >Transcender?
> >
> >If so, I'd have to say I don't agree with you. Try telling that to Kaplan
> >and other organizations out there helping people pass the SAT's and other
> >standardized exams, let alone IT certifications.
> >
> >If ALL you use is Transcender, than yes, you're short changing yourself.
> >BUT, if it's used as a final prep tool (the way it's designed to be
used),
> >after proper study and hands-on experience in a real work environment,
then
> >that's smart. But again, it's up to the individual and how much money
they
> >feel justified in spending to prepare for an exam. But, to say that using
> >them is somehow degrading the satisfaction of passing the exam, then
that's
> >just plain silly.
>

What a narrow wall for the MS Cert team to stand on. Encourage as many
people as possible to get certified (purchase exams) and yet protect the
certifications (to a certain extent) so that they maintain some validity -
or it all comes crashing down, where no one will get certified because it
will mean nothing.

"Kline Sphere" <T> wrote in message
news:...
> >Microsoft supports the use of 'prep tools' for exam preparation. This is
why
> >they have the MCPTP program.
>
> Absolutely. As I implied, it's great way to get more and more people
> through the door, although there is no guarantee that someone who
> passes the exam understands the subject matter.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:37:12 -0500, "Davin Mickelson"
<> wrote:
>The more people taking exams, the greater the revenue stream.
>
>What a narrow wall for the MS Cert team to stand on. Encourage as many
>people as possible to get certified (purchase exams) and yet protect the
>certifications (to a certain extent) so that they maintain some validity -
>or it all comes crashing down, where no one will get certified because it
>will mean nothing.
>
>
>"Kline Sphere" <T> wrote in message
>news:...
>> >Microsoft supports the use of 'prep tools' for exam preparation. This is
>why
>> >they have the MCPTP program.
>>
>> Absolutely. As I implied, it's great way to get more and more people
>> through the door, although there is no guarantee that someone who
>> passes the exam understands the subject matter.
>

I can't say I totally disagree. I know that there are plenty of people
looking to just pass the exam without cutting their teeth. They turn to
whatever method they think will get them there the quickest. Of course, the
cert alone won't help much in getting real results if they don't truly have
the knowledge and/or experience to back it up.

I personally use the Transcenders as a final prep before the exam. I do
however, keep a daily diet of study/reading; books, magazines etc in
addition to daily work. But by no means do I look to them [Transcenders] for
the "answers". I think that they're a good way to get into the exam
mentality before an exam and point out possible weaknesses to focus on.

But yes, to reiterate, I realize that some people use them (and others) as a
shortcut to strictly try and pass them exam without the real effort
involved. I suppose for some, it works. Obviously though, there are plenty
of posts here, where people have used study aides such as Transcender, and
have still failed.

"Kline Sphere" <T> wrote in message
news:...
> Oh come on....
>
> Most people use these type of 'prep tools' in the hope that the same
> (or very similar) questions will appear in the actual exam. Why else
> would anyone want to use them? The format of these exams is so simple,
> that no intelligent person would need to take a 'practice' test before
> taking the real one.
>
> My view is they help to undermine the worth of the exams, when in
> order for some dummy to pass an exam, that dummy simply needs to pay
> transcender (or whoever) for a set of questions and answers which they
> can memorize.
>
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:27:37 -0400, "Leigh Kendall"
> <> wrote:
>
> >Not sure what you're trying to say.
> >
> >Are you trying to say that by using Transcender or some other legitimate
> >prep tool as preparation after studying the product and working with it
> >hands-on day to day, is somehow less effort than NOT using a prep tool
like
> >Transcender?
> >
> >If so, I'd have to say I don't agree with you. Try telling that to Kaplan
> >and other organizations out there helping people pass the SAT's and other
> >standardized exams, let alone IT certifications.
> >
> >If ALL you use is Transcender, than yes, you're short changing yourself.
> >BUT, if it's used as a final prep tool (the way it's designed to be
used),
> >after proper study and hands-on experience in a real work environment,
then
> >that's smart. But again, it's up to the individual and how much money
they
> >feel justified in spending to prepare for an exam. But, to say that using
> >them is somehow degrading the satisfaction of passing the exam, then
that's
> >just plain silly.
>

Give me a break!
People buy Transcenders exams and use them as the PRIMARY study material to
pass the exam.
Somebody with no knowledge of the material at all can buy a Transcender
exam, study the exam and a few of the links provided, and pass the exam a
week or two after buying the Transcenders.

That is not learning anything useful in the real world, it is learning to
pass the exam. That is the value of Transcenders exams, to learn to pass
the exam. It is only that value.
If you read books, work with the product, take the exam and pass, then you
know the product and deserve the certification. Most people who use
Transcenders exams skip the 'read the books' and 'work with the product'
part and still pass the exam. They do not deserve the certification.
You can't tell me that most people are paying $169 for each Transcender
practice exam and using them only as a "final prep" to ensure they know the
material. People pay $169 because they know that is the only thing they
need to buy to pass the exam.

JD.

"Leigh Kendall" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Not sure what you're trying to say.
>
> Are you trying to say that by using Transcender or some other legitimate
> prep tool as preparation after studying the product and working with it
> hands-on day to day, is somehow less effort than NOT using a prep tool
like
> Transcender?
>
> If so, I'd have to say I don't agree with you. Try telling that to Kaplan
> and other organizations out there helping people pass the SAT's and other
> standardized exams, let alone IT certifications.
>
> If ALL you use is Transcender, than yes, you're short changing yourself.
> BUT, if it's used as a final prep tool (the way it's designed to be used),
> after proper study and hands-on experience in a real work environment,
then
> that's smart. But again, it's up to the individual and how much money they
> feel justified in spending to prepare for an exam. But, to say that using
> them is somehow degrading the satisfaction of passing the exam, then
that's
> just plain silly.
>
> --
> Leigh Kendall, MCSD, MCDBA
>
> "Sarang" <> wrote in message
> news:04c101c37d49$1228bc50$...
> > Frankely speaking,
> >
> > don't even think of looking at either (transcender or
> > dumps) because, thought you might just pass the exams,
> > you will miss out on that personal satisfaction of
> > passing the exam after taking some amount of effort.
> >
> > I cleared my MCSD.NET and am on the topof the world
> > today. Right amount of study always does pay off well.
> >
> > Also, I believe that nowadays to clear MS exams all you
> > need is a little common sense and to know the fact that
> > these exams are becoming more of promotional instruments
> > for their latest products.
>

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!